UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Explicit vandalism listing

Discuss.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:29, 13 October 2009 (BST)

The danger here is that "According to the policy me calling grim a little fiffan zinja isnt vandalism, because its not on your list". --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:53, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Unfortunately for you, making policy discussions in the weeks or days leading up to your bid for promotion only works a treat if the policy is well thought out and worthwhile.--CyberRead240 16:56, 13 October 2009 (BST)

I think it should be an open policy, one that can change and be added to. If those type of policies exist. Otherwise you'll get people trying to worm around the policy, as per Ross' comment. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}17:01, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Eh, the system sucks because sops just choose whats vandalism and whats not. A better idea imho than this would be a list of all useful precedent. IE DDR can say 'jeds edit is vandalism coz lookie, the same thing happened back in 07'. Obviously not everything has precedent but a handy list of useful a/vb cases would be nice. Your idea is well intentioned but just too impractical. Also waht was the end result of the jed talkpage drama? Charlie gave up coz boxy removed the category? --xoxo 17:20, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Are you kidding? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 19:09, 13 October 2009 (BST)

In fact, fuck it, I'm unloading. If you think for one fucking second that all I wanted in this was to keep a stupid little pissy fight going with you, then you can just go back to sucking Nicks dick in whatever asian country you're at just now, don't bother fucking coming back here to the wiki. All I wanted was for the page to be categorised, Boxy did that (ie. doing me the favour, not you) which was what I suggested in the first place so you just shut the fuck up and maybe think for a second that you are the one that basically "backed down" from making as much drama as possible for the sake of shitting me off. You were the one under the obligation to revert Boxy's edit, not me. And we are the ones on a vendetta/bearing a grudge here, aren't we? Sheesh. I'm actually appalled but not surprised that both you and Iscariot actually believe that's what you thought my intentions were in all this. Honestly. Appalled. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 19:17, 13 October 2009 (BST)

edit conficted: So phrase it to avoid worming/wiki-lawyering: "This is a reference list of specific types of edits that have been determined to be vandalism by the wiki community. However, this list does not include every possible act of vandalism, since bad-faith edits are determined on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, a particular type of edit can still be vandalism without appearing on this list."

Also, if you put this list together each item on the list should have an link to an example showing where it was ruled vandalism. Finally, there should be room for the community to have input on any controversial items before the list is "officially" declared, and the list should be alterable by community input. If you ask me it's a great idea and it's about time this wiki had something resembling a code of laws.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:42, 13 October 2009 (BST)

I'm very against this policy. I think it's high time we perma'd everyone and let the wiki slide into that sweet oblivion.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:13, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Codifying it like this will just make users like Iscariot get off on his 'policies and precedences' more. It's the opposite to a solution. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 19:09, 13 October 2009 (BST)

"Less wiki-lawyering, not more," and I agree. Case-by-case resolutions are far better, especially because in the opposite case we could have conflicting/schizophrenic/irrelevant precedents being applied or ignored resulting in more "misconduct" for improperly using or not adhering to them. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:18, 13 October 2009 (BST)

And as cited the whole reason for this was because I threatened a user with a 'vandalism report' (which isn't even such a big goddamn deal) and instead of working to fix the problem, some came to the table and unnecessarily fought to make the problem bigger, which happened to be exactly what the user wanted and the opposite of what I wanted. The point is, what happened on J3D's talk page isn't exactly the best example of why we would need a rule like this, it's more of an example to see where peoples loyalties on the wiki's well-being lies. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 19:25, 13 October 2009 (BST)